Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 106 of 298 (319034)
06-08-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Crue Knight
06-07-2006 8:44 PM


bad math, bad theology
In Genesis 10:25 it says "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.". This occured 2,000 yrs after the flood.
having done the math myself, i can tell you for certain that this figure is wrong. the duration from the flood until the birth of peleg is 199 years. here is the relevant portion of that (frustrating) discussion, in the hopes that you are NOT another incarnation of simple:
quote:
quote:
Gen 11:10 These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
flood (98) + 2 = 100.
quote:
Gen 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
100 + 35 = 135
quote:
Gen 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
135 + 30 = 165
quote:
Gen 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
165 + 34 = 199.
In the year 3114 B.C., when Peleg was thirty-nine years old, the earth's continental division must have occured.
no. that's not what this refers to.
quote:
Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
read a few verses down:
quote:
Gen 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
this is the last verse of genesis 10. what happens in genesis 11? god divides the nations at the tower of babel.
Remember, when the Bible says someone "begat" someone, it doesnt mean it is a father-son relationship. It could be a grandfather, great-grandfather ect.
the word is and means something similar to "gave birth to." but it's actually irrelevant, since the bible gives us the time between these events. it doesn't matter if there are generations in between, because we know the timeframes. (see above)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Crue Knight, posted 06-07-2006 8:44 PM Crue Knight has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 107 of 298 (319038)
06-08-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Crue Knight
06-08-2006 12:28 AM


...and bad logic
Remember, when the Bible says someone "begat" someone, it doesnt mean it is a father-son relationship. It could be a grandfather, great-grandfather ect.
See this link for some examples:
http://www.timehasanend.org/..._time_has_an_end_ch03.html#02
i covered the part of this that's important to chronology above. but now for the other points.
quote:
We can see from the diagram that these three men must have been contemporaries, with Eber the oldest. But if Eber had actually been born earlier than Peleg and Reu, and if he had outlived both Peleg and Reu (as the diagram shows), so that he was the patriarch of the clan, so to speak, one would surely think it would have been a matter of divine record that he, instead of Peleg, lived when the earth was divided, the event that we find recorded in Genesis 10:25 and I Chronicles 1:19. Thus, we are led again to the conclusion that the term “begat” as used in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11, must have, at least in some instances, reference to a relationship other than that of an immediate father-son.
this is a faulty conclusion. we find later in genesis that abraham is still alive when the story switches to isaac, that isaac is still alive when the story goes to jacob. that jacob is still alive when the story goes to joseph.
quote:
Significantly, the Bible does not record that Eber “called his name Peleg” because as a point of fact, Peleg was not born until about the time Eber died.
- is a phrase that appears in stories, not genealogies. that's "v'tiqera et-shemu" not "qara shem." evidently, your source used a concordance improperly.
you will also find that eve does not "call his name" cain, or abel. are they not direct sons, either?
quote:
“These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” But in this verse, “sons” has reference to all of the descendants of Shem. Thus, the word “sons” does not prove that a reference is made to the immediate son of the father. It might be noted that Matthew 1:1 also illustrates this truth, for there we read, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
poor understanding of translation. the hebrew (ben) refers to family, although it CAN often DOES refer to direct sons. it's a family name, like "jesus ben sirach"
but it's only ben that works that way. yalad ("begat") literally means a direct descendant, and your source does not show any instance where it does not. the NOUN yelad means "child" and the VERB yalad means "have a child."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Crue Knight, posted 06-08-2006 12:28 AM Crue Knight has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 10:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 298 (319044)
06-08-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by arachnophilia
06-08-2006 10:20 AM


Re: ...and bad logic
I'd also question the idea that the association between the division and Peleg is made on the basis that Peleg was patriarch at the time. Since we are given no other name for Peleg or any reference to a change of name, it seems more likely to me that the event supposedly happened around the time that Peleg was born, and that is why Peleg was named after it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 10:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 10:50 AM PaulK has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 298 (319046)
06-08-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
06-08-2006 10:43 AM


Re: ...and bad logic
I'd also question the idea that the association between the division and Peleg is made on the basis that Peleg was patriarch at the time.
yes -- it's just trying to give a timeframe for the events in genesis 11, and "after the birth of peleg" is a fairly decent way to do so. presumably, it happened before peleg had his son, so that gives us a span of 30 years. by crue's logic, this verse is actually meaningless, because the "lived x years and begat ___" phrases are meaningless, and the span of time of peleg's life is 239 years. not very precise. that'd be like defining the civil war as happening sometime between the declaration of independence and now. try passing a history exam with that one.
added by edit:
Since we are given no other name for Peleg or any reference to a change of name, it seems more likely to me that the event supposedly happened around the time that Peleg was born, and that is why Peleg was named after it.
also a very good point. peleg's NAME means "division." he was named after the event -- so it safe to assume it happened near his birth.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 10:43 AM PaulK has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 298 (319057)
06-08-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Crue Knight
06-07-2006 8:44 PM


You are probably talking about the Mayan "Long" calendar which was only one of the calendars that the Mayans used. Even there there are several different dates that point to the date of origin, and 3114 is only one of the possible calculations.
But regardless of mythology, of customs, of calendars, all of the evidence shows that there was no world-wide flood, at least in the last 600,000 years or so. the Maya were not the first modern humans to arrive on this continent, or even the oldest civilization on this continent.
Recent finding have pushed the arrival of modern man way back, not just to 6000-10,000 years, but to 15-30,000 years ago. Recent evidence coming from the Topper site and others may well push that figure back even further, perhaps as far as 50,000 years ago.
The initial radiocarbon dating confirmation of material from the deepest Topper site with artifacts so far has been right at the limits for radiocarbon dating. The importance of this is that it gives a minimum age, the layer might even be earlier.
The jury is still out on the Topper site data, it will have to await further studies. It will also depend on whether any of the other sites such as Pedra Furada in Brazil (dated back to about 40-50,000 years ago) and other sites ranging up and down the east coast of the US to Chile and Peru and the American North West continue to be supported by the evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Crue Knight, posted 06-07-2006 8:44 PM Crue Knight has not replied

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 298 (319735)
06-09-2006 9:17 PM


quote:
is a phrase that appears in stories, not genealogies. that's "v'tiqera et-shemu" not "qara shem." evidently, your source used a concordance improperly.
you will also find that eve does not "call his name" cain, or abel. are they not direct sons, either?
The Bible doesnt have to say "call his name" to mean a fathre-son relationship. If it doesnt say "call his name", it doesnt mean it's not a father-son relationship either. But we can be assured it is a direct son if it does say that.
quote:
poor understanding of translation. the hebrew ‘ (ben) refers to family, although it CAN often DOES refer to direct sons. it's a family name, like "jesus ben sirach"
but it's only ben that works that way. yalad ("begat") literally means a direct descendant, and your source does not show any instance where it does not. the NOUN yelad means "child" and the VERB yalad means "have a child."
I think that was the whole idea.
quote:
yes -- it's just trying to give a timeframe for the events in genesis 11, and "after the birth of peleg" is a fairly decent way to do so. presumably, it happened before peleg had his son, so that gives us a span of 30 years. by crue's logic, this verse is actually meaningless, because the "lived x years and begat ___" phrases are meaningless, and the span of time of peleg's life is 239 years. not very precise. that'd be like defining the civil war as happening sometime between the declaration of independence and now. try passing a history exam with that one.
Yeah, I found that out that it's been about 101 years after the flood that the earth divided. But Im 15 and still learning. So Ill ask the author to see if he made a mistake in his timeline, or if it's explainable. Ill reply once I get his answer.
quote:
You are probably talking about the Mayan "Long" calendar which was only one of the calendars that the Mayans used. Even there there are several different dates that point to the date of origin, and 3114 is only one of the possible calculations.
And you see many scientists looking at the year 3114 B.C. so its possible, because the event happened at that time when Peleg was "supposedly" 39 yrs old. Perhaps the "other" calendars were "continued" from the calendar they were using during the time the continents were all together.
quote:
But regardless of mythology, of customs, of calendars, all of the evidence shows that there was no world-wide flood, at least in the last 600,000 years or so. the Maya were not the first modern humans to arrive on this continent, or even the oldest civilization on this continent.
Remember, if creation is true, there is no 600,000 years ago. And yes the Mayans weren't the first (the Aztecs or other natives could have been shifted here to the "current" position), but their calendar provides support for the earth's division really happening at the time of Peleg.
quote:
The initial radiocarbon dating confirmation of material from the deepest Topper site with artifacts so far has been right at the limits for radiocarbon dating. The importance of this is that it gives a minimum age, the layer might even be earlier.
Also (supposing creation is true, which I believe is), radiocarbon dation would be inacurrate after some thousand years.
http://www.timehasanend.org/..._time_has_an_end_ch05.html#08
Edited by Crue Knight, : Adding a statement.

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2006 9:53 PM Crue Knight has replied
 Message 113 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:03 PM Crue Knight has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 298 (319757)
06-09-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Crue Knight
06-09-2006 9:17 PM


Also (supposing creation is true, which I believe is), radiocarbon dation would be inacurrate after some thousand years.
http://www.timehasanend.org/..._time_has_an_end_ch05.html#08
Ouch! There are so many huge errors in that one linked paragraph that it makes my teeth hurt!
Go poke around the "dates and dating" forum, Crue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Crue Knight, posted 06-09-2006 9:17 PM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:06 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 115 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 10:46 PM Coragyps has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 113 of 298 (319766)
06-09-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Crue Knight
06-09-2006 9:17 PM


Yeah, I found that out that it's been about 101 years after the flood that the earth divided. But Im 15 and still learning. So Ill ask the author to see if he made a mistake in his timeline, or if it's explainable. Ill reply once I get his answer.
please do, but understand that often people are very biased in their readings of the bible, and out to prove some kind of point -- often to justify the text against the real world in places where it seems failing.
some will accuse me of something similar, i'm sure, but i'm out to show the logical outcomes of the words on the page, as they are written and literally read.
And you see many scientists looking at the year 3114 B.C. so its possible, because the event happened at that time when Peleg was "supposedly" 39 yrs old. Perhaps the "other" calendars were "continued" from the calendar they were using during the time the continents were all together.
there's good textual evidence that the "division" (that is, babel) happened while peleg was either very, very young, or not yet born. his name, after all, is "division."
the whole bit about the date is probably very, very wrong. as most of the logic in the article is also wrong. i think it's kind of a futile effort to try to figure the dates of events in early genesis anyways. i think it's futile even up through exodus. the old testament becomes a strict history sometime in the vicinity of the book of kings. short of there, it doesn't even line up with itself.
for instance, there's a rather large problem with the duration of time in the book of judges. samuel contains a reference to the duration between the exodus and an event in the storyline of that book -- but that figure is much shorter than the figure you get if you add up judges and joshua.
eg: there is no precise way to date anything before that because there's a discrepancy in the timeline.
Also (supposing creation is true, which I believe is), radiocarbon dation would be inacurrate after some thousand years.
coincidentally, radiocarbon dating doesn't even work for objects older than 10,000 years.
however, supposing (young earth) creationism is true, all of science would be inaccurate.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Crue Knight, posted 06-09-2006 9:17 PM Crue Knight has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 114 of 298 (319769)
06-09-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
06-09-2006 9:53 PM


Ouch! There are so many huge errors in that one linked paragraph that it makes my teeth hurt!
yeah, i took stab a few of them, but i'm not gonna sit here and critique someone's textbook of logical fallacies, poor hebrew, and bad theology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2006 9:53 PM Coragyps has not replied

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 298 (320976)
06-12-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
06-09-2006 9:53 PM


Ouch! There are so many huge errors in that one linked paragraph that it makes my teeth hurt!
Ok to heal your toothache, we need to get to the problem.

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2006 9:53 PM Coragyps has not replied

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 298 (320988)
06-12-2006 11:33 PM


Ok I found why the author of "Time Has an End" thinks that the Division of the earth could be farther than what we think to the flood (possibly about 2,000yrs. (4990 B.C. - 3114 B.C.)). Stupidly I found it right in the previous chapters, Chapter 3.
So we read Gen 11 and think the time from the flood to the division of the earth was about 101 yrs. But notice the Bible doesn't use the phrase "called his name". So is it possible Eber was NOT Peleg's direct father?
Let's look at Gen 8:13
quote:
And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
At Gen 6:7
quote:
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Does it mean the calendar of the Bible could be tied with a person's lifespan?
As a matter of fact, we use the term "Before Christ" or B.C. or "In the year of our Lord" known as A.D., and we are dating historical periods in reference to the birth date of a person (Christ).
So Eber's son would have been born 34 years afterwards, who God decides he would NOT place his name in the Bible, then Peleg would have been born about the time Eber would be dying or near death, since Eber's sons would not be appropiate to be named or not important in the calendar of the Bible.
So in between Eber and Peleg it could have been 3 or more generations!!!
(Otherwise Eber would still be alive throughout Peleg's life and death, and why wouldn't God just say the earth divided in Eber's time, and put such a statement on Peleg?)
This method could've been used to many of the calendar Partriarchs, making it a lot longer than we thought! This provides evidence that there could have been different tribes and plenty of people who bacame the Mayans and so forth.
And, it should pop a quetion in our minds, is the earth really 6-7000 years old, or could it be double times longer?
And it should also tell us that we shouldn't look at the Bible literally, but comparison of verses will reveal the truth.
It taught me to read the book from bigining to end not middle to end to begining! lol!
Here's the link to the source:
http://www.timehasanend.org/..._time_has_an_end_ch03.html#04
Edited by Crue Knight, : Correction.

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2006 2:30 AM Crue Knight has replied
 Message 119 by Nighttrain, posted 06-14-2006 11:04 PM Crue Knight has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 117 of 298 (321016)
06-13-2006 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 11:33 PM


The reference to Peleg is not intended to give a date - it is to explain why he was named "Peleg". Thus the whole argument is built on sand. As I pointed out earlier, it is most likely that the author meant that Peleg was born around the time of the "division" and thus named after it.
Thus your source is taking an extremely speculative and dubious reading to justify futher speculative and dubious readings. In short he's decided what he wants the Bible to say and is trying to force it to fit his ideas. Do you really endorse that ?u

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 11:33 PM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:56 PM PaulK has replied

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 298 (321580)
06-14-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by PaulK
06-13-2006 2:30 AM


Why is he trying to fit his ideas? It doesn't makes sense? Besides, if we could find the date so easily in the bible then we could have calculate the earth's age in the medieval ages! The bible says in Daniel 12:
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
So he reveals certain thing when he wants to. Also warning us the end is near.

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2006 2:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2006 2:37 AM Crue Knight has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 119 of 298 (321645)
06-14-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 11:33 PM


Hi, Crue, at 15, I salute you for putting on your thinking cap. That`s all one could ask of you. From your link-Chap 2
Evolution's Absurdities
The notion called evolution can be easily shown to be utterly impossible. Consider a simple object like a table. How did that table come into existence? No one can deny that a human being designed it and then carefully constructed it. Under no circumstance can anyone conclude that over a long period of time that table somehow evolved. Every person with even the slightest intelligence knows that.
Jump now to a human being with his more than three billion pairs of DNA in his genome. Obviously, the design of the human genome is a million times more complex than the design of the table. Thus, if a simple object like a table requires a designer, certainly, a being as complex as a human being also requires a designer. Furthermore, if this table had to be manufactured by someone after it was designed, it should be immediately obvious that a human being also has to be made by someone. For that matter, everywhere we look in this universe, we find millions of objects far more complex than a simple table. If a simple table could
Chapter 2
Does God Exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35
not be a product of evolution, then neither can any of these other millions of objects in the universe be a product of evolution.
The very fact that intelligent men and women slavishly maintain the idea of evolution is a fact in itself that proves there is a God who created the universe. The conduct of these individuals in believing in the supposed reality of such a preposterous idea as that of evolution in itself indicates that deep in their being, perhaps in their subconscious mind, they know that there must be a divine creator. What other reason could there be that would cause intelligent men and women to try to believe in such an impossible concept as evolution?
As an exercise, can you point out the flaws in the author`s reasoning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 11:33 PM Crue Knight has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 298 (321719)
06-15-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:56 PM


quote:
Why is he trying to fit his ideas? It doesn't makes sense?
Of course it makes sense. The Bible doesn't say what he wants it to, so he looks for excuses to strain and torture the text, so he can say that it does mean what he wants.
quote:
Besides, if we could find the date so easily in the bible then we could have calculate the earth's age in the medieval ages!
If you relied on the Bible, you could come up with an estimate quite easily. And people did. So what is your point ?
quote:
The bible says in Daniel 12:
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Try reading it in context:
Daniel 12:4
But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time;
It refers to the Book of Danile itself which will only be revealed in the end times.
quote:
So he reveals certain thing when he wants to. Also warning us the end is near.
Firstly it refers only to concealing whole books, not to some guy coming along and deciding to twist the text of the books we do have.
Secondly it tells us that the end times were at the time of the Maccabean Revolt - more than 2,000 years ago (as, indeed, the author of Daniel believed).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:56 PM Crue Knight has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024